In Re: Rochester v., No. 07-7341 (4th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7341 In Re: JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:97-cv-03924-HMH) Submitted: December 7, 2007 Decided: December 27, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julian Edward Rochester, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Julian Rochester, a South Carolina inmate, petitions this court for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to rule on outstanding motions to reopen in three of Rochester s cases. Additionally, Rochester seeks recusal of various district court and Fourth Circuit judges. Rochester mistakenly believes that there are outstanding motions in any of the three cases. In Rochester v. South Carolina Dep t of Corrections, No. 2:97-cv-03924-HMH (D.S.C.), the district court denied Rochester s motion to reopen by order entered on October 26, 2004. In Rochester v. South Carolina Dep t of Corrections, No. 2:98-00146-WBT (D.S.C.), the district court denied Rochester s motion to reopen by order entered on September 10, 2003. Finally, there is no record in the district court of Rochester s having filed any motion to reopen in Rochester v. USA, No. 2:03-cv-01736-HMH entitled to (D.S.C.). mandamus relief with Rochester respect therefore to the is not allegedly outstanding motions. We note that Rochester failed to allege with any particularity the extrajudicial bias necessary to warrant recusal of any judge. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, he is not entitled to the relief sought. Because Rochester is not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, see Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. - 2 - 394, 402 (1976), we deny the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED - 3 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
